There’s a reason I used the odd-cased HoTMaiL in the title because that’s the way it was originally written out. You’ll notice the capital letters are HTML. Hotmail was spelled that way many moons ago to really drive home the fact it was HTML (meaning web) based mail.
Microsoft this week decided to roll out the new-and-improved interface across the rest (if not all) of Windows Live Mail accounts, and this obviously includes Hotmail.
Some people like it while others don’t like or outright hate it. You can put me in the camp of people that genuinely do like it because it goes back to the way Hotmail used to be – simple and fast.
The single largest complaint I’ve seen about the new Windows Live Mail interface is that people say it’s "boring" and that the previous interface was "just fine".
Not true.
The previous interface was no less "boring" than the new one and was so chock full of bloat that it made it a chore to use. While it’s true there are some things I miss (the "check mail" button and several icons are gone), the speed more than makes up for it. I don’t remember Hotmail being this fast since the early 2000s.
E-Mail is not supposed to be "exciting" to use. You want exciting and a super-cool animated in-your-face interface? Go play a video game; stay out of my e-mail.
Microsoft is now the first of the big three (Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, Gmail) to roll out a single interface and stick to it. Yahoo! Mail allows for a "Classic Mode" and Gmail an "Older version" option. The reason? Because the current-generation interfaces are too bloated. Microsoft was doing the same thing with their own "classic mode" as well – but with the new interface that is no longer the case.
Since using the new interface with Hotmail I can honestly that yes, this is truly new and improved. You can read things easier, it loads faster, the learning curve is minimal and most of all – it acts like a cloud-based app is supposed to act like.
Google and Yahoo! are officially going to have to start playing catch-up at this point.
I would have to agree that email is a tool, not entertainment.
If you want to be entertained, go play a game and leave me email ALONE and SIMPLE.
I wouldn’t go anywhere near as far as saying that hotmail sucks, but there is just one thing that I particularly dislike about it: Spam.
“You’ll get spam with any email service from any provider.” You retort.
Agreed; but nere’s what draws me to Gmail: I get more spam in my Gmail account than in any of my hotmail accounts; but I see much less of it in Gmail because Google remove a lot of it automatically. I can filter spam that Google misses much more easily by using Gmail’s ’simpler-in-this-respect’ GUI, and yes, Gmail does occasionally think that some of my genuine messages are spam and treats them as such – but due to the ease-of-use of the GUI that is fairly easy to rectify.
I haven’t used the hotmail webmail browser for some time I admit: I still manage to have my hotmail messages delivered to OE from free accounts – So far so good. Feel free to accuse me of judging a book by its cover in this case; but my recollection of hotmail’s spam filter was that one had to find an obscure page and set the spam filter precisely every time a new line of spam email appeared. – This was frequent as somehow the spammers seemed to be notified of all hotmail accounts on a regular basis: Maybe an inside job; maybe not? (I know that all spam I get through Gmail is due to my own lapses rather than third-party disclosure; as is some but by no means all of the spam I get through hotmail.)
I won’t comment further as I’d just be rumour-mongering if I were to do so. Certainly in my experience, though, Gmail’s spam handling facility is far better; as afr as I am concerned anyway. Other people may disagree; in which case I’ll simply agree to differ.
You haven’t used the updated web interface, marking spam is easy without any “obscure” pages as you put it, and you’re pulling in Hotmail using an obsolete mail client that curtails vital key features of the Hotmail service. Whenever spam arrives you’re never notifying the service as such and instead just hitting “delete” – and that’s not the way to do it. There is no way to mark spam in Hotmail using OE.
I suggest either logging into Windows Live Mail directly at mail.live.com and/or downloading the Windows Live Mail client and ditching Outlook Express to enable full functionality of the Hotmail service. Until you do so, all points you mentioned are weak as you have absolutely zero experience with the modern interface or client.
And your “inside job” claim is absolutely ridiculous. That’s FUD-spreading nonsense.
Jeez! That was quite a reply, and some!
I realise of course that it’s not possible to set the spam filter via OE. I never said it was and haven’t stated anywhere that I attempted to do so, nor have I. I stated that I hadn’t used the updated hotmail web interface, and indeed I have that experience to look forward to, in order to be clearly seen to be criticising the web interface as I remember it rather than as it is now and so that my comment doesn’t appear as a load of utter crap based upon a lack of experience. I agree that I have not yet experienced the new hotmail interface, and I explained that so that my comment wasn’t viewed as utter crap: I thought that would be clear.
As for OE; I realise that it is an outdated Windows App; however it works and I have set it up so that it indexes my mail in a way that I like. While I continue to use Windows XP; which will be at least until Windows 7 is released, I see no reason why I can’t continue to use OE for the time being.
As I’ve stated in the PC Mech Live shows at 8PM EST on Wednesdays; I’m not too fond of Windows Live Mail, even though I have it installed on my computers. It will take a lot of getting used to. I much prefer OE as my mail client for the time being. I prefer to avoid web-based interfaces where possible, even having set my Gmail account to appear on OE. You could call it convenience, you could call it laziness, you can call it what you want; that’s how I like things for now.
Possibly the points I mentioned are indeed weak: I only resaerch things for my articles; my comments are usually fired straight from the hip, although not intended to inflict injury in any way.
Finally the “inside job” claim was intended to be read tongue-in-cheek. (I hope Microsoft didn’t read it the same way you did: I really don’t fancy facing any lawsuits right at this moment.)
If you haven’t used the updated interface or the Windows Live Mail client then you can’t make any judgment calls on the updated Hotmail, period.
Windows Live Mail is an updated version of the Outlook Express engine. If you used it you would know this. There is little to no learning curve whatsoever.
“I haven’t used the hotmail webmail browser for some time I admit: I still manage to have my hotmail messages delivered to OE from free accounts – So far so good. Feel free to accuse me of judging a book by its cover in this case; but my recollection of hotmail’s spam filter was that one had to find an obscure page and set the spam filter precisely every time a new line of spam email appeared.”
Question – why go on about something that you “recall” and admittedly haven’t used for some time? *confused* For a self confessed technowitch and geekette I find it kind of contradictory that you are using, as Rich correctly puts it, “an obsolete mail client”. OE is outdated beyond extremes, riddled with security holes, incompatibility issues and database corruption issues. The Windows Live Mail client for Hotmail is far superior in all aspects when compared to it’s little brother.
If you think that Windows Live Mail will “take a lot of getting used to” just wait until you change over from XP to 7! There’s much more of a learning curve right there than there is with Windows Live Mail (as WLM is basically a skinned version of Outlook Express anyway).
May I make a somewhat logical suggestion? First, use the actual client in conjunction with your Hotmail account and then, if you still have issues and dislikes, take aim and fire.
Your analysis is based upon your own perceived image of a ‘technowitch and geekette’ and whatever you imagine being such entails.
Outlook Express is outdated, true, but I like it.: You could equally say that worshipping the Moon Goddess is outdated too.
Comparing using WLM to using Windows 7 is like comparing a network interface card to a computer: There is no comparison as such.
I like learning-curves; but that said I don’t as a result necessarily have to like every App that I learn to use.
There appears to be a strong discrepancy between our respective thought processes perhaps?
For clarity purposes:
-SHARRON-
I’m not too fond of Windows Live Mail, even though I have it installed on my computers. It will take a lot of getting used to.
-DREW-
If you think that Windows Live Mail will “take a lot of getting used to” just wait until you change over from XP to 7! There’s much more of a learning curve right there than there is with Windows Live Mail (as WLM is basically a skinned version of Outlook Express anyway).
-SHARRON-
Comparing using WLM to using Windows 7 is like comparing a network interface card to a computer: There is no comparison as such.
No comparison between using WLM to using Windows 7 was stated – the link between the two examples was purely that the *learning curve* for Windows 7 from XP will be much greater than Windows Live Mail from Outlook Express as you stated previously “It will take a lot of getting used to.”
Hopefully this makes sense now.
I still don’t understand why people who have interest in technology really hate change. The new ajax interfaces, while I only use yahoo, are much more functional than before. It appears to be more of an application rather than one of those static webpages made by a 13 year old on geocities.
If your comment was aimed in my general direction then the issue has nothing to do with hating change but rather with personal preference:-
In the same way as I prefer OE to WLM I prefer XP to Vista; yet conversely I prefer WMP11 to WMP9 or 10. Unlike many people in the geek world I don’t feel obliged to use something because it’s new; rather I use what works best for me.
Having said that I will try anything new twice: If I didn’t try new things how could I tell whether they work better for me or not? Rather than feeling compelled to use somethintg because it’s new, I feel obliged to try out something because it’s new: If I like it I use it, if I don’t at least I can say that I tried yet still go on using what works best for me.
I think that this and the similar thread above should now be closed or change subject as it’s wandering well off the topic of the article to which the comment is attached. You’re welcome to look at the “All about me” section in one of my personal profiles somewhere online (See my blog.); but you’ll probably only read “I don’t do autobiographies” or similar.